180
JK Rowling condemns Lilly Wachowski's claim she's 'funding trans genocide' (www.thepinknews.com)
submitted 3 weeks ago by [M] to c/fuck_jk@quokk.au
79 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The Sense8 creator said: “JK Rowling funds trans genocide, full stop. So, if you support Harry Potter, you’re supporting trans genocide.

“The money that goes into you enjoying these products, a portion of that money goes to JK Rowling and that money goes into her funding anti-trans legislation all over the world.”

Wachowski suggested that trans allies should boycott work that benefitted Rowling financially, including HBO’s upcoming TV adaptation of the Harry Potter series.

“In the same way that if you are against Elon Musk, you boycott or don’t buy Tesla; and if you’re against global warming/climate change, you try not to buy as much gas, you try to mitigate your use of these products,” she said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 3 weeks ago (8 children)

If your enjoyment of the media isn't soured by the knowledge that it directly funds hate and genocide, you're a piece of shit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (6 children)

    The rise of Donald Trump has shown me that a full third of the population is unrepentantly mean and bigoted and actively wants people like me dead. A full half the population doesn't care that they want to kill me as long as I didn't disturb their peace, and if I do then I'm the problem. And most of the rest seem willing to sacrifice trans kids to the bigots and uncaring majority in a misguided attempt to save themselves. Humans aren't good.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (5 children)

    People are people, peoples perception of "good" and "bad" is relative and contextual.

    Take that in to account when building your expectations of people.

    I personally try to take the approach that everyone is inherently selfish and will do what's best/convenient for themselves (and perhaps the people closest to them).

    and i mean selfish as a neutral descriptor, not a derogatory term.

    No expectations, no disappointment, but i know that's not a viable approach for a lot of people (and i'm not immune to the occasional hope of someone pleasantly surprising me).

    I'm not saying i don't expect good things/behaviours to happen, i just try not to build expectations on that eventuality.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (4 children)

    That's not very useful though. There are perfectly sound arguments that empathy and altruism are inherently selfish and self serving. Selfish behaviors can be pro-social, but humans tend strongly toward the anti-social ones in spite of being intrinsically social creatures. Humans are not good.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago* (3 children)

    It's useful to me, ymmv.

    And again, your perception of good is just that, yours.

    I happen to agree with the sentiment in general terms but I fully understand it's just my subjective experience and i wouldn't use it as a baseline for others.

    There are people I would consider "good" , but it's very contextual, people are mercurial.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    My perception of good is based on empirical evidence on the affects of pro- and antisocial behaviors at the societal level. Our current society is inherently antisocial, and more humans are concerned with maintaining the status quo than improving things for everyone. Humans are not good.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    An excellently described personal and subjective approach to determining good vs bad.

    Im not saying you're wrong, im saying your chosen usage and/or perception of metrics isn't universal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago

    Nothing is universal, and not every discussion on lemmy about good or evil needs to devolve into a philosophical discussion on ontology. Good or bad are ultimately meaningless value judgements but you didn't need value judgements to see how large scale human behavior and society is actively harmful to humans. I'm perfectly comfortable declaring that state to be "not good."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago

    That's an opinion, sure.

    There's a great deal of modern day interactions that are similar in nature, where each person draws their line is up to them.

    How people view other peoples line is also up to them.

    What i was getting at here wasn't the subjective morality or ethics, that is an interesting subject though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent